The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-15-2013, 03:44 PM   #101
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,063
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhantasm View Post
You directly tied your argument about message-value into an example about street vigilantism. Since the message of TDKR is "anyone can be Batman" NOT "anyone can be a hero, courageous, etc." I concluded that this was what you were talking about. If not, we probably agree on some things... but consequently disagree with the (silly) message of TDKR.
I see why you might have construed that from my post, but those were two separate points I was making. In fact it'd be counterproductive to the point I was trying to make to say the Batman story must deliver some sort of message about street vigilantism when I think it should (and does) have broader themes and messages to convey. I just used that HBO Documentary to support my argument that it's kind of preposterous to think that only one person on the whole planet could ever be a successful vigilante, if given the means. I think that projects a rather dim view on humanity as a whole and paints Bruce Wayne as some sort of inherently superior being. Furthermore I don't think "anyone can be Batman" was the message of TDKR at all. "A hero can be anyone" though, was one of the messages. There's a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhantasm View Post
What's funny is that TDKR is based partly on Knightfall... and the whole message of Knightfall, Knightsquest, and Knightsend is that ONLY Bruce can be Batman.
That's the beauty of adaptation when you've got 70+ years to draw from, you can pick and choose themes, characters, situations etc. into a unique combination. Everything in the Knightfall storyline post back-break is downhill IMO.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158

Last edited by BatLobsterRises; 07-15-2013 at 04:20 PM.
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 04:15 PM   #102
shauner111
Side-Kick
 
shauner111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,868
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhantasm View Post
What's funny is that TDKR is based partly on Knightfall... and the whole message of Knightfall, Knightsquest, and Knightsend is that ONLY Bruce can be Batman.
Yes but only elements, which is why it's not an adaptation. "Only Bruce can be Batman" is just false in my eyes, and there's Dick Grayson, Terry McGinnis and now John Blake to prove it. Only Bruce Wayne can create the symbol. But anybody can be Batman with the right circumstances, and they don't need to have the personality traits that Bruce has.

If you want to be fussy about it, and can't see anybody but Bruce Wayne as the Batman, then why don't you guys just see Blake as becoming Nightwing-esque while carrying the "symbol" forward. Using it for the future generation but with Blake's own unique disguise.

Either way, Nolan's Robin was a perfect combination of Dick Grayson and Tim Drake. Dick became Nightwing when the time came, and also became Batman briefly. To me that was the whole point in Batman having sidekicks and training them in the first place, so they can take over the crusade for the next generation. But of course DC has to sell their Wayne/Batman comics with a "Robin" by his side. So that didn't last too long. Film can last forever and it can have a definitive ending.

The advantages of film.


Last edited by shauner111; 07-15-2013 at 04:24 PM.
shauner111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 04:25 PM   #103
ThePhantasm
The Shadow Knows
 
ThePhantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10,668
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by shauner111 View Post
If you want to be fussy about it, and can't see anybody but Bruce Wayne as the Batman, then why don't you guys just see Blake as becoming Nightwing-esque while carrying the "symbol" forward. Using it for the future generation but with Blake's own unique disguise.
Oh right... I forgot about that scene at the end where Gordon walks out on the rooftop and finds the new Nightwing signal waiting there.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz View Post
Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.
ThePhantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 04:39 PM   #104
shauner111
Side-Kick
 
shauner111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,868
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake


shauner111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 04:42 PM   #105
ThePhantasm
The Shadow Knows
 
ThePhantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10,668
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake


__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz View Post
Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.
ThePhantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 04:59 PM   #106
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,063
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

It'd kind of defeat the whole premise of Blake (potentially) forging his own superhero identity to assume that putting a new Bat-signal was Bruce's way of imposing on Blake to follow his footsteps to the letter. If anything that was more of a nod to Gordon.

In my imagination, 'Blakeman' would be understood to be carrying on the work of the Bat, but distinct enough that Gotham also understands he's a different person. I'd also imagine he'd have the chalk style "V" style logo on his chest, which incidentally happens to look a lot like the Nightwing symbol. Shining the bat-signal itself would still have a lot of meaning for Gotham, so there'd be no reason to change that.

That's what the ending gave us- a strong notion and hint towards the future, where our imaginations can fill in the specifics.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 05:03 PM   #107
ThePhantasm
The Shadow Knows
 
ThePhantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10,668
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

When was forging his own superhero identity ever a premise? Bruce said that anyone can be Batman specifically. Blake is raised on the platform and the title arrives: The Dark Knight Rises. I think the movie makes it clear what his identity will be.

A new batsignal is useless unless there's going to be an actual Batman. And there's no real reason for Blake to choose an identity other than Batman. He doesn't have Dick Grayson's hang-ups about donning the cowl.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz View Post
Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.
ThePhantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 05:11 PM   #108
shauner111
Side-Kick
 
shauner111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,868
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

I don't think that has to be what Bruce meant. I believe he means anybody who can do what Batman does, anybody can be that person who stands up for their city and fights corruption.

But I see Blake as either being Nightwing in the exact way BatLobster describes it. Or he simply becomes the new Batman. I think both work out.

Blake did say he didn't want to wear a mask. Bruce suggested otherwise. You can take it as him not putting on a cowl or full mask OR he takes Bruce's advice and becomes the new batman.

The new batsignal could be for the "resurrected Batman" or it could be a way for Bruce to tell Gordon that A) he's still alive and B) Gordon can turn it on each night to remind Gotham of what Batman stood for.

shauner111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 05:52 PM   #109
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,824
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACrowe View Post
Well if we're gonna' be honest, you still have to give the comics a HUGE mulligan for accepting that Bruce Wayne would put 12-year-old boys in the same room as criminals like the Joker in brightly colored costumes that make them walking targets. It is always going to be something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you think about it for more than a minute.

However, I agree that they gave Dick Grayson depth (mostly as Nightwing) and tried again with Tim Drake. I also love Damian Wayne who is not really like those two. I grew up on comics in the '90s

But my point is that Robin has always been more of a "Gary Stu" character. He is always optimistic, outgoing and not very deep. The most interesting Robin (besides Damian) to date is TAS's own take on Tim Drake. But in the comics? They are all ciphers and everyman/everyboy meant for everyone to relate to. The trick is if the writing makes them interesting. John Blake fits that to a tee, they just update it to him being in his 20s. He is the Terry McGuiness character. And I think the way they write his revelation scene to Batman is so well performed that it works.
Honestly, Robin's costume is not all that bright and colorful anymore these days. The Robin suit was red and black for most of its Post-Crisis years and even the yellow and green are now more underplayed whenever they show up (compared to the past). Robin being a "walking target" and not being as dark as Batman is also something crucial not only to his character but to the whole purpose of Robin and to why he exists in the first place in the context of the story. He needs to be just that. This is something I am going to go into more detail later on in this post but basically, the purpose of the levity that comes with Robin is to keep Batman away from becoming the Punisher.

As for why Bruce would allow 12 year olds to fight criminals, that is something that you just have to accept and suspend your belief on. It is not something that is exclusive to Batman but to comics as a whole, since Batman is far from being the only superhero with a sidekick. Ironically, the idea of Batman having a sidekick makes more sense than the idea of almost any other superhero having a sidekick (despite Batman always getting the most crap for it from fans) because Batman is mentally stable as opposed to Flash, Green Arrow and the rest. Also to be fair, there have been many stories in which Bruce did not want Robin (or any other Bat Family member) to go take care of something with him whenever he believed that things were too dangerous. The Joker specifically has always been a grey area when it comes to that.

You're making it sound as if being an everyman/everyboy equates to being a Gary Stu. Peter Parker and Barry Allen are the biggest everymen in Marvel and DC respectively but are still great, interesting and compelling characters. The everyman archetype - or any archetype for that matter - is not a bad thing to have in comics. The key is to make these characters interesting and not generic. John Blake was not that to me. There was nothing interesting about him that I found. There was nothing that stood out. His personality and character were boring. He was essentially the same idealist cop archetype that I have seen in so many films and stories. And once again, not that archetypes are a bad thing as long as there is something there to make them interesting and unique from the rest. I don't believe Blake had that there. On the other hand, the last 3 Robins all not only have something there to make them interesting but something to make them unique from each other. Dick Grayson's Robin is the only exception because he was already Nightwing at the time when DC turned their superheroes into actual (and interesting) characters.

Also, Terry is nothing like John Blake in character or backstory. Terry was a reformed criminal that was mentally scarred from the mistakes he committed in his life. He kept looking for ways to atone for his crimes and to feel worthwhile but did not manage to find any prior to discovering the batcave. When his father died due to a mistake he made, it made him feel even more worthless yet more motivated to find a way to atone for his crimes, which is what pushed him to steal the batsuit. They are two entirely different characters. The only thing they have in common is that they both become Batman.

Quote:
Did you miss the part where he was wrong to judge Gordon? That's why he "retires" at the end, because he is sick of realizing the grayness and political side of law and order. But he accepts Gordon was right. I also recall his plan to rescue his partner ends up getting his partner killed and himself almost executed if not for Batman showing up.
He has too many moments where he is just so right and so perfect in comparison to everyone else. Most of the film acts as if his only flaw is the fact that he is a good cop, which isn't even a flaw. The film puts him on a pedestal and treats him as the idealist cop who is a beacon of light in comparison to the rest (even Gordon in Year One and Batman Begins was more human and had more flaws). He gets out of a lot of situations with ease by himself (situations that even Gordon couldn't have handled by himself throughout the trilogy), is able to easily figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman looking into his soul (for lack of better term), and is worthy enough to inherit the batcave after spending less than 10 minutes of screen time with Bruce/Batman probably an hour overall in the context of the story. I probably wouldn't have a problem with all this if he wasn't just so boring and generic. My issue is that they took such a boring generic character and tried to convince us that he is more important than he should be. And yes, I know he is important to the story because of the ending but Nolan's first priority was to make an interesting compelling character so that the ending could naturally work (ignoring the other reasons as to why I think the ending would not work in the first place).

Quote:
And there's my point. You dislike the character because he is not from the comics and are even making mountains out of flat dirt, such as his name. He is the EXACT same archetype as the popular main Robins (i.e. not Jason Todd).


I specifically said that his name does not constitute in any way to him being boring and generic. Regardless of his name, I would have found him just that. I said I was making a funny observation and even put that () icon there to emphasize that. In other words, it was a joke.

But even if I was being serious, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't like him because he isn't a character from the comics? If a character has a boring and generic name, wouldn't the logical solution to that problem be to...you know...change the name to one that's at least not as generic? Comics are also not immune from generic names in the first place.

Quote:
And there it is writ large. You dislike the idea of Batman passing his legacy on and so you hate Blake and, to an extension, the movie.
The fact that I dislike Blake was not born out of the ending. I did not know what the ending was walking in. I found Blake to be a vacuum and waste of screen time by the end of the first act. Also, the ending is a problem that I associate more with Bruce and with the overall message of the film. It could have been any other character in the film who inherited the batcave and I still wouldn't have been fond of it.

I also don't dislike the film just because of the ending. While I am not fond with the messages that Bruce Wayne should outgrow Batman and that anyone can be Batman and that Batman is a legacy, there are other problems that I have with the film. Not being a good Batman film is the least of its problems. Like I said, I did not know about the ending prior to seeing the film. However, I remember seeing tons of red flags from the trailers alone. There were tons of things I saw that would either hurt the film as a Batman film or things that did not match up with what was established in the previous 2 films. On top of not being a good Batman film, I also consider TDKR to not be a good sequel and to just be ok as a stand-alone film. The mentality that I went into the film with was "Yeah, it doesn't look like things match up with the previous 2 films or the Batman mythos but I have no doubt it will be a great film on its own". It was a shock for me that it wasn't even that. Not that it is a bad film (it's an alright film) and there are a lot of ideas in it that are great but the whole film falls apart when you put everything together. Basically, picture something great. Now picture something else that's great. You would be happy to see both of those things in the film but when you sit down and think about it, the second great thing completely contradicts/ignores the first great thing.

I really did not want to dislike TDKR. Even after all my friends have given up on it, I was still looking forward to it. Even after a lot of people I've talked with told me some of the problems they had without spoiling too much (I saw the film a week after it came out), I was still looking forward to it. Heck, even after I heard about the rumored ending, I was still looking forward to the film. There were rumors going around prior to the film coming out that John Blake would become Batman and Bruce would fake his death and retire in Italy with Selina. I remember brushing off all those people as idiots. Heck, even after my friend (who is also a big Batman fan) told me that the ending was bad, I still brushed off that rumor as the last thing to ever happen.

After I saw it, I even decided to give it a second chance to see if my opinion would change. Some of the things I thought were plot holes got cleared up the second time around but other than that, my opinion stayed the same for the most part. Overall, my point is that I by no means take pleasure in bashing the film.

Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 05:53 PM   #110
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Shikamaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,824
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Batman IS a legacy character. In the modern sense of comics that is the best explanation of why such a loner and borderline psychotic control freak takes on a "Bat-family" that includes multiple sons (Dick, Jason, Tim, Damian) and a daughter (Barbara). He is building a network to continue his work after he is gone.
Actually, in the modern sense of comics that is not the best explanation as to why such a loner and borderline psychotic control freak takes on a “Bat-family”.

First I have to explain the purpose of Robin in Modern Batman comics as I said I would. Robin often gets a bad rep from people. People often say that he is responsible for watering down Batman and such. I think that is true but that is also the whole point behind Robin. The jokiness and lightheartedness that Robin brings into the atmosphere around Batman is there to help Batman not cross that line and become the Punisher. This has been true about Robin since his very inception. In the Golden Age, the whole idea behind Robin’s creation was that Batman would no longer carry a gun to use in front of a kid and would be more responsible now that a kid is running on the rooftops with him. In the Modern Age, Robin puts emphasis on the fact that Batman is not the Punisher despite Batman being a dark and gritty character today. The reasons and motivations have changed throughout the years from dumbing down Batman comics to add depth to Batman and his no-kill policy but regardless of those two things, that purpose behind Robin has stayed the same. Robin is not fully the reason as to why Batman has that level of self-control to not cross that line but he is a big reason nonetheless. He doesn’t always have to be there in the comics but his existence in the Batman mythos is very important due to that.

That being said, Bruce did not originally recruit his Robins so that they could take his place nor does he have control over them once they grow up and leave the nest. Dick Grayson’s origin has varied throughout the years from writer to writer but in most versions, Bruce adopted him in the first place because he could relate to him due to losing his parents as well and provided him with the comfort he needed (unless you’re reading All-Star ). Then a situation arises in which either Dick discovers Bruce’s secret or Bruce is put into a situation in which he has no choice but to reveal who he is (Bruce reveals it to him after saving him if we go by Dark Victory). Bruce then trains Dick to become Robin so that Dick could fulfill his desire of catching Zucco and fighting crime. Then came Jason Todd. Bruce took him in because he wanted to reform him. He did not want to see a kid like him go on to become the criminal, which is the direction Jason was heading (and unfortunately, Bruce failed to do so). Next came Tim Drake, who approached Batman after he deduced his identity and asked him to be his new Robin. Bruce didn’t even want a new Robin at that point until Tim reminded him of the whole purpose of Robin in the first place (which is, like I said, to keep Batman away from becoming the Punisher). Next came Damian Wayne, who Bruce didn’t even know existed until very recently in that Batman timeline. Damian became Robin while Bruce was “dead” and he stayed as Robin when Bruce came back (as a side note, the Bruce as Batman/Damian as Robin dynamic doesn’t really work since I can’t picture Damian keeping Batman away from crossing that line). Prior to Damian’s death, Bruce had him be Robin to essentially keep him in line and continue reforming him in the same way Dick was reforming him.

As you can see, none of the Robins were mainly recruited because Bruce wanted to train them so that they could be Batman one day. In the case of Dick and Tim, it revolved around Bruce giving them the training they sought. In the case of Jason and Damian, it revolved around Bruce trying to reform them for the better. The Robins – and the rest of the Bat Family as well – is free to do as they please once they grow older and leave the nest. They can stay by Batman’s side, leave Gotham to go protect another city, create another identity altogether, or even quit crimefighting altogether. They can do this because they are their own men. He did his job as a “parent” to the best of his abilities by providing them with what they sought and guiding them along the way. It is entirely up to them what they do from that point on. However, Bruce never intended to push them on the path of them becoming Batman. In fact, it was always the exact opposite of that. Deep down inside, Bruce’s greatest wish has always been for his sons to not become like him. To not become a psychotic, obsessed, and paranoid demon in human form who sees the world through a very cynical lens like he does. This is excluding the fact that Batman is not very trusting of others and is too stubborn to pass on the Batman mantle in the first place. In the same way, both Dick and Tim do not have a desire to be Batman because they understand what it takes to be Batman. They understand that it takes more than just will. They know that they don’t have the insanity and obsession required to be Batman, which is what separates Batman from the rest of superheroes. Dick has even stated multiple times that he is too optimistic to be Batman. Jason does want to be Batman on the other hand, though he is the exception for obvious reasons.

Another reason as to why he has a Bat Family is because of his desire to have a family despite knowing he will never have one due to his Batman career. Thus he subconsciously lets (and even attracts in some cases) people into his life as Batman in order to fill that void.

Quote:
There is always the implied undertone in the better Batman/Nightwing stories that Nightwing is the heir apparent. It is a burden he does not want, but is almost haunted by. During "Knightsend," the best volume of "Knightsfall," Nightwing feels dejected and insulted that after Bane broke Batman, Bruce left the mantle to some random nutjob instead of himself. Tim Drake feels similarly, though he knows he is too young and inexperienced to become Batman. Nightwing ends up battling this metal monstrosity and Jean-Paul even says, "The Heir Apparent has come for his mantle" or something to that extent.

Then when Bruce Wayne is "killed" again, Dick Grayson really becomes Batman. And if you ask many comic book readers, Dick Grayson as Batman and Damian Wayne as Robin were some of the best Batman stories in years. The only reason Dick quit being Batman, which continued even after Bruce Wayne came back, was because DC wanted their New 52 Reboot to only have one main Batman character.
I already addressed most of this stuff what you just read above. The next few points are just add-ons to what I already stated.

Interesting that you source the Knightfall series. I was going to source it as well in my last post but did not want to overwhelm you with too long of a post. Remember what Bruce says to Tim when Tim asks if he should contact Dick to take up the Batman mantle while Bruce is recovering? “No, he is his own man” or something among those lines. This goes back to what I said previously. Not only does he believe Dick is his own man but he also doesn’t believe that Dick lives in Batman’s shadow. Nightwing is his equal. You would have to be below someone in the first place in order for you to inherit their mantle. Nightwing would not inherit the Batman mantle for the same reasons why Superman would not inherit the Batman mantle: Because the Nightwing mantle is fitting to Dick in the exact same way the Batman mantle is fitting to Bruce. And of course that he would be offended that Bruce did not even bother to contact him and ask him if he could fill in for him for a bit. I also never said that someone like Dick or Tim can’t temporarily fill in for Batman while he is injured or missing; just that no one can really permanently replace Bruce Wayne as Batman.

Even while Bruce was “dead”, Dick did not want to become Batman because Nightwing is what suited him and he understood that no one can really permanently replace Bruce as Batman and do the job he does, though he did eventually understand that he is the best man for the job out of all the options available. Tim did put on a batsuit for a while but he believed from the beginning that Bruce was still alive thus he understood that what he is doing is fine because it was temporary.

For the record, I liked the stories with Dick as Batman and Damian as Robin. In fact, I believe the idea of having Damian as Robin only works if you have Dick as Batman, which is why I didn’t care for Damian anywhere as much when Bruce came back as I did when Bruce was “dead”. However, they never tried to shove down our throats the idea that Dick would forever stay as Batman. We knew from very early on that this was all going to be temporarily and that Bruce Wayne was stuck in the past. Also, let’s be realistic that Dick would have quit being Batman regardless of the New 52. The idea of two Batmans active at once couldn’t have lasted for so long. This analogy might sound silly but if the president goes into a coma and the vice-president takes over, what happens when the president awakens from the coma? Do they both remain as president or does the vice-president go back to being the vice-president? The latter is the most likely thing to happen even if the president has things to deal with in other countries (similar to Batman Inc).
Quote:
Yes, Bruce Wayne always comes back and never permanently passes the mantle, but that is because this is the nature of comic books. They are never ever going to KILL or end Batman for good. So, Bruce Wayne will always be Batman. But that is the nature of the beast. But the better comic writers, including Morrison, recognize Batman is a legacy character and find clever ways to explore that in his confounds. Bruce Wayne's necessity for Robins can only be rationally explained as such.
Already explained the whole thing with the Robins. The following statements will also be just add-ons to what I already explained above.

First, let’s say for the sake of argument that Batman’s necessity for Robins is due to them training them to take up the Batman mantle one day. When you’re dealing with a legacy character, the one next in line for the mantle inherits it when the one currently holding the mantle retires and is too old to continue (assuming the one currently holding the mantle doesn’t die). Ignoring the fact that Batman is probably too stubborn and paranoid to trust the mantle to someone else and the fact that Bruce is so obsessed with Batman that he would probably not quit until his very death, let’s try to estimate an age at which Bruce Wayne would most likely quit being Batman. Let’s say 60. Most incarnations of Batman in which Bruce retired had him retire around that age. It is a reasonable and realistic age for retirement too. So let’s say he will retire at 60. Pre-New 52, Bruce was 27 when he adopted Dick, who was 12. Post-New 52, Bruce was 30 when he adopted Dick, who was 16. So let’s say that there is generally a 15-year gap between Dick and Bruce. The age gap between Dick and Tim is probably around 7 or 8 years based on whatever references we have to estimate their age. Your entire argument is that Bruce spent 35 years (25 to 60) as Batman and trained Dick when he was young so that Dick could take over the Batman mantle at 45 only to be Batman for not even half the time Bruce spent as Batman? And if Dick retires at the same age, then Tim is meant to take up the mantle at around the age of 52/53 and be Batman for like 7/8 years? It would be completely illogical for Batman to have Robins for that reason. Heck, it would be more than that. It would make Batman look like a complete idiot.

Now let’s get into the whole conspiracy theory that the only reason why Bruce doesn’t pass on the mantle permanently is because DC won’t let him. As a side note, it’s funny how almost everyone only started throwing this around post-TDKR. It is almost as if people are trying to look for an excuse to defend Nolan . Anyways, let’s take a look at actual legacy characters from the DCU:

1. Flash – The first Flash was Jay Garrick. He was created in 1940 and lasted until 1952 when the JSA comic was cancelled. Then there was a 4 year gap and in 1956, the second Flash was introduced – Barry Allen. Barry was the Flash from 1956 to 1986, the year he was killed off. His sidekick, Wally West, took on the mantle and was the third Flash up until 2009 when Barry came back. Did they bring Barry back eventually? Yes, but it was because Barry was the Flash that most fans found the most interesting. DC still established the fact that Flash was a legacy character nonetheless. On top of that, they didn’t even establish the fact that nobody will ever surpass Barry as the Flash. Wally arguably surpassed him prior to him coming back. There was Flashes before him and there will be Flashes after him, some even superior to him.

2. Green Lantern – The first GL was Alan Scott. He was created in 1940 and lasted until 1952 when the JSA comic was cancelled. Then there was a 7 year gap and in 1959, the second GL was introduced – Hal Jordan. Hal Jordan was the new GL from 1959 to 1994, when they turned him into Parallax. Kyle Rainer became the new GL after that up until 2004 when Hal came back. On top of that, there have also been other humans that were GL’s – John Stewart & Guy Gardner. Did they bring Hal back eventually? Yes, but it was because Hal was the GL that most fans found the most interesting. DC still established the fact that GL was a legacy character nonetheless. Much like Flash, there were GL’s before Hal and there will be GL’s after him, some even superior to him.

These are clear examples of legacy characters. The reason why Barry and Hal are brought back in the end is because those characters just happen to be the characters that most people like the most out of all the characters to have held the mantle, but it is still established that they are legacy characters nonetheless. It doesn’t just happen that most people consider Bruce Wayne to be their “favorite Batman”. Batman was created out of the loss of Bruce Wayne’s innocence. He is a biproduct of Bruce Wayne’s scarred mind and exists in Bruce’s mind alone. Due to this, the comics have also established that no one would have the insanity and obsession required to be Batman in the first place, other than Bruce. The non-Barry Flashes and non-Hal GL’s at least held those respective titles for at least a decade or more. You’re comparing that to Jean-Paul Valley being in the batsuit for almost a full year and with Dick being in the batsuit for 2.5 years (real life time; not comic book time) out of the 74 years that Batman has existed. Even Superman had more replacements while he was dead, who is also not a legacy character. Both of those cases of Bruce not being in the suit are also cases in which we knew from the very beginning that this was all temporary, that Bruce wasn’t dead and that he was going to come back pretty soon. We didn’t fully know that when Barry died and when Hal became Parallax.

In the case of Knightfall/Knightsquest/Knightsend though, the entire message of that book was that only Bruce could be Batman. That was why they had someone else in the suit for a while. It was to prove a point.

Quote:
In other mediums where endings are allowed this becomes more explicit.

In "The Dark Knight Returns," Bruce Wayne fakes his death and trains the little girl and an army of freaks in the sewers to become an army of Batmen. Why? Because they will continue on his good work in his name. Is it a bit dark and mean spirited how this version of legacy is realized? Yes, but that's Frank Miller for you.

In Batman Beyond, which you acknowledge, Paul Dini and Bruce Timm have the advantage to end their story with Bruce Wayne passing on his legacy to Terry McGuiness. And it is just a kid off the street who makes Batman his own, until the years-later retcon in an episode of Justice League Unlimited reveals that he is like some half-clone or some such nonsense. Ignoring that, within the confines of the show and its film, Terry becomes Batman because Bruce Wayne needs someone to carry on his work and like Dick and Tim, there is something about Terry that Bruce sees himself in. Not unlike....

John Blake. Like Dick, Terry, Tim in TAS, etc. Blake is an orphan who shares Bruce's anger. Bruce sees something of himself in John Blake and at first lets him do small tasks while he carries the big load (not unlike how Batman treats his Robins). But there is an eye on him as being a potential successor.
The stories you sourced are both examples featuring Bruce still being around. Bruce is still present doing the work post-Dark Knight Returns and in Batman Beyond, he is just now doing it through other people because he is older. Regardless, the mind of Batman is still there because Bruce is still there, as is the obsession, paranoia, and insanity.

Terry is not Bruce’s clone; he is his biological son. I know this isn’t related to the main topic but I had to clarify that.

Being an orphan does not equate to being a potential candidate for Batman. Terry wasn’t even an orphan in the first place; he was a reformed criminal who wanted to atone for his sins. Bruce saw a level of anger in Dick and Tim (in TAS) that he shared which is why he adopted them. However, as I already stated, they are different from Batman and lack the insanity. What separates Bruce from everyone else is what he did with that scarred mind and anger. Instead of curing himself with comfort and professional therapy, he used it to create the monster that is the Batman even if it meant that he would be becoming even more insane and would have to abandon his humanity. None of the Robins have done that, which is why they are far more optimistic and are not insane (same thing applies to Blake). Bruce made sure that they wouldn’t become the monster he is while he and Alfred raised them. Saying that John Blake has so much in common with Bruce because they’re both orphans is a simplified and black-and-white view of what Batman is. There is so much more to what created Batman than just being an orphan. It was being there to see his parents die, for once. Blake assumingly did not have to experience that. And even then, there are still many things that would separate him from what Batman is.

Speaking of Dick being Batman, it is far more in-character for Bruce to let Dick be Batman than it will ever be for Bruce letting John Blake. Bruce only entrusted Dick with being Batman after personally training him, raising him and then working with him for years. Blake is a guy that Bruce has known for literally less than an hour in the TDKR timeline (they have less than 10 minutes of screen time together) and he not only inherits the Batcave but receives no training whatsoever nor does Bruce keep an eye on him once he leaves. He gives him the mantle then just leaves. It is the equivalent of a driving teacher putting the keys to his car in his new student’s hands on the first day and telling him to go learn while he is out with his wife. The execution of the ending is just as poorly done as the concept of the ending itself, perhaps maybe even a bit worse.

Quote:
It is a major aspect of the source material. It is just one that you want to ignore.
It sadly isn't. It is just one that some people think/choose to believe it is there.


Last edited by Shikamaru; 07-15-2013 at 08:41 PM.
Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 06:06 PM   #111
Isearch4dope
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 225
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Didn't like blake's reveal of the identity of bats at all. With that said for someone to figure out the bats identity other than how reese did must have been difficult for the writers. The smarter thing to have done was to let bruce reveal it to him somehow in desperation or not let him know at all.

Isearch4dope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 07:02 PM   #112
ThePhantasm
The Shadow Knows
 
ThePhantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10,668
Thumbs up Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Shikamaru, your entire post is fantastic. I enjoyed reading it. I want to highlight this in particular:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
They can stay by Batman’s side, leave Gotham to go protect another city, create another identity altogether, or even quit crimefighting altogether. They can do this because they are their own men. He did his job as a “parent” to the best of his abilities by providing them with what they sought and guiding them along the way. It is entirely up to them what they do from that point on. However, Bruce never intended to push them on the path of them becoming Batman. In fact, it was always the exact opposite of that. Deep down inside, Bruce’s greatest wish has always been for his sons to not become like him. To not become a psychotic, obsessed, and paranoid demon in human form who sees the world through a very cynical lens like he does. This is excluding the fact that Batman is not very trusting of others and is too stubborn to pass on the Batman mantle in the first place. In the same way, both Dick and Tim do not have a desire to be Batman because they understand what it takes to be Batman. They understand that it takes more than just will. They know that they don’t have the insanity and obsession required to be Batman, which is what separates Batman from the rest of superheroes. Dick has even stated multiple times that he is too optimistic to be Batman.
That is 100% what the Batman / Robin relationship is and has always been in the comics. This is a masterful way to make your point and gets to the heart of the characters. Well put.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz View Post
Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.
ThePhantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 07:04 PM   #113
ThePhantasm
The Shadow Knows
 
ThePhantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10,668
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
In the case of Knightfall/Knightsquest/Knightsend though, the entire message of that book was that only Bruce could be Batman. That was why they had someone else in the suit for a while. It was to prove a point.
Yes, yes, yes.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz View Post
Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.
ThePhantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 07:46 PM   #114
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,532
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Shikamaru, your posts are INCREDIBLE

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 08:52 PM   #115
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,063
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhantasm View Post
When was forging his own superhero identity ever a premise? Bruce said that anyone can be Batman specifically. Blake is raised on the platform and the title arrives: The Dark Knight Rises. I think the movie makes it clear what his identity will be.
But of course, he didn't. He said, "Batman could be anyone." He's speaking to Gotham's perspective there...for all the citizens of Gotham knew, Batman could be any one of them. THAT was the point. To awaken the spirit of good from within the city. It must seem like I'm arguing semantics to always make this distinction, but IMO there is a small but infinite difference there.

I'm not saying Blake forging his own superhero identity was a premise stated outright in the movie, it's the premise of an argument I'm making based on little bits and pieces in the movie and my own interpretation of an ending that I feel calls for some level of interpretation.

I think it's also interesting to note that the title wasn't "Batman Rises", but the more vague "Dark Knight". Sure, we all know in pop culture terms that Batman= The Dark Knight, but in the movie-verse "Dark Knight" was just a phrase Gordon used once to explain Batman's actions to his son. Blake can be Gotham's watchful protector/silent guardian while also being the next evolution of the Batman concept.

The title refers to a lot though, primarily Bruce's own rise from darkness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhantasm View Post
A new batsignal is useless unless there's going to be an actual Batman. And there's no real reason for Blake to choose an identity other than Batman. He doesn't have Dick Grayson's hang-ups about donning the cowl.
Oh I disagree. Even for argument's sake we say Blake never even decides to become a vigilante at all, it would still have a lot of significance for Gotham's citizens to see that in the sky- like shauner said. I could see Gordon lighting it once a year to commemorate the end of the siege, similarly to how they do the "tribute in light" in NYC every September 11th. They already established the idea of using the bat-signal to "send a message" in TDK, even if Batman doesn't respond.

Also, Blake did seem to have some hangups about wearing a mask, so he's bringing his own, slightly different sense of idealism to the mantle. Blake is more a hero 'of the people' instead of from wealth, so he has an inherently different worldview, and being an ex-cop will probably figure into his methods too. Even if he still wears a Bat-cowl and is called "Batman" by the people, the important thing to me is that he will be a different type of Batman. The symbol will evolve with the times and Gotham will have a new hero for a new era if it needs one. That's what the last shot is all about to me.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158

Last edited by BatLobsterRises; 07-15-2013 at 08:55 PM.
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 09:16 PM   #116
IranianBatman
Newbie First Class
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Hi everyone,

Im new to this forum. I just w1anted to say I have become addicted to Batman produced by Chris Nolan. However, regarding identifying Bruce Wayne as Batman should NOT be too difficult for anyone in Gotham somewhat interested in finding it out (and there are a LOT of people in Gotham interested in it).

1) Batman must be well off financially or have connections with military contractors
2) Right when Bruce Wayne (the wealthiest person in Gotham) comes back, Batman starts shortly after
Right when Bruce Wayne becomes a recluse (after TDK), Batman is also a recluse
3) Right after Bruce Wayne attends a public charity event (with the town talking about it), Batman comes back

Also, I can understand someone like Blake not revealing Batman's identity. But Bane and the previous guy (Raz al-Ghul) knew Batman's identity..surely they would benefit if they released it to the media or something.

IranianBatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 02:01 AM   #117
VictoriaR85
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 85
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by IranianBatman View Post
Hi everyone,

Im new to this forum. I just w1anted to say I have become addicted to Batman produced by Chris Nolan. However, regarding identifying Bruce Wayne as Batman should NOT be too difficult for anyone in Gotham somewhat interested in finding it out (and there are a LOT of people in Gotham interested in it).

1) Batman must be well off financially or have connections with military contractors
2) Right when Bruce Wayne (the wealthiest person in Gotham) comes back, Batman starts shortly after
Right when Bruce Wayne becomes a recluse (after TDK), Batman is also a recluse
3) Right after Bruce Wayne attends a public charity event (with the town talking about it), Batman comes back

Also, I can understand someone like Blake not revealing Batman's identity. But Bane and the previous guy (Raz al-Ghul) knew Batman's identity..surely they would benefit if they released it to the media or something.
Hi there, and welcome.

You bring up some good points. (Though, listening to Bruce and Miranda's conversation at the charity ball, I got the impression that Bruce had been in self-exile for three years.) Anyway, if you live in Gotham and put two and two together, it makes a lot of sense that Bruce Wayne could be Batman. I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that some people suspected he might be, but we simply don't get to see their point of view in the films. I believe that Blake and his friends at the boy's home made up stories that Bruce was Batman, which Blake went on to figure out was true.

You are right about Ra's and Bane knowing his identity. One of my personal wishes for the film was for Bane to reveal it to everyone and then see them rally behind Bruce. We heard Alfred talk a lot about the Wayne family legacy in the films, so I think it would have been fitting for Bruce to uphold that legacy by everyone knowing he was fighting for them.

VictoriaR85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 09:26 PM   #118
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 26,040
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Honestly, Robin's costume is not all that bright and colorful anymore these days. The Robin suit was red and black for most of its Post-Crisis years and even the yellow and green are now more underplayed whenever they show up (compared to the past). Robin being a "walking target" and not being as dark as Batman is also something crucial not only to his character but to the whole purpose of Robin and to why he exists in the first place in the context of the story. He needs to be just that. This is something I am going to go into more detail later on in this post but basically, the purpose of the levity that comes with Robin is to keep Batman away from becoming the Punisher.

As for why Bruce would allow 12 year olds to fight criminals, that is something that you just have to accept and suspend your belief on. It is not something that is exclusive to Batman but to comics as a whole, since Batman is far from being the only superhero with a sidekick. Ironically, the idea of Batman having a sidekick makes more sense than the idea of almost any other superhero having a sidekick (despite Batman always getting the most crap for it from fans) because Batman is mentally stable as opposed to Flash, Green Arrow and the rest. Also to be fair, there have been many stories in which Bruce did not want Robin (or any other Bat Family member) to go take care of something with him whenever he believed that things were too dangerous. The Joker specifically has always been a grey area when it comes to that.

You're making it sound as if being an everyman/everyboy equates to being a Gary Stu. Peter Parker and Barry Allen are the biggest everymen in Marvel and DC respectively but are still great, interesting and compelling characters. The everyman archetype - or any archetype for that matter - is not a bad thing to have in comics. The key is to make these characters interesting and not generic. John Blake was not that to me. There was nothing interesting about him that I found. There was nothing that stood out. His personality and character were boring. He was essentially the same idealist cop archetype that I have seen in so many films and stories. And once again, not that archetypes are a bad thing as long as there is something there to make them interesting and unique from the rest. I don't believe Blake had that there. On the other hand, the last 3 Robins all not only have something there to make them interesting but something to make them unique from each other. Dick Grayson's Robin is the only exception because he was already Nightwing at the time when DC turned their superheroes into actual (and interesting) characters.

Also, Terry is nothing like John Blake in character or backstory. Terry was a reformed criminal that was mentally scarred from the mistakes he committed in his life. He kept looking for ways to atone for his crimes and to feel worthwhile but did not manage to find any prior to discovering the batcave. When his father died due to a mistake he made, it made him feel even more worthless yet more motivated to find a way to atone for his crimes, which is what pushed him to steal the batsuit. They are two entirely different characters. The only thing they have in common is that they both become Batman.



He has too many moments where he is just so right and so perfect in comparison to everyone else. Most of the film acts as if his only flaw is the fact that he is a good cop, which isn't even a flaw. The film puts him on a pedestal and treats him as the idealist cop who is a beacon of light in comparison to the rest (even Gordon in Year One and Batman Begins was more human and had more flaws). He gets out of a lot of situations with ease by himself (situations that even Gordon couldn't have handled by himself throughout the trilogy), is able to easily figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman looking into his soul (for lack of better term), and is worthy enough to inherit the batcave after spending less than 10 minutes of screen time with Bruce/Batman probably an hour overall in the context of the story. I probably wouldn't have a problem with all this if he wasn't just so boring and generic. My issue is that they took such a boring generic character and tried to convince us that he is more important than he should be. And yes, I know he is important to the story because of the ending but Nolan's first priority was to make an interesting compelling character so that the ending could naturally work (ignoring the other reasons as to why I think the ending would not work in the first place).





I specifically said that his name does not constitute in any way to him being boring and generic. Regardless of his name, I would have found him just that. I said I was making a funny observation and even put that () icon there to emphasize that. In other words, it was a joke.

But even if I was being serious, how did you come to the conclusion that I don't like him because he isn't a character from the comics? If a character has a boring and generic name, wouldn't the logical solution to that problem be to...you know...change the name to one that's at least not as generic? Comics are also not immune from generic names in the first place.



The fact that I dislike Blake was not born out of the ending. I did not know what the ending was walking in. I found Blake to be a vacuum and waste of screen time by the end of the first act. Also, the ending is a problem that I associate more with Bruce and with the overall message of the film. It could have been any other character in the film who inherited the batcave and I still wouldn't have been fond of it.

I also don't dislike the film just because of the ending. While I am not fond with the messages that Bruce Wayne should outgrow Batman and that anyone can be Batman and that Batman is a legacy, there are other problems that I have with the film. Not being a good Batman film is the least of its problems. Like I said, I did not know about the ending prior to seeing the film. However, I remember seeing tons of red flags from the trailers alone. There were tons of things I saw that would either hurt the film as a Batman film or things that did not match up with what was established in the previous 2 films. On top of not being a good Batman film, I also consider TDKR to not be a good sequel and to just be ok as a stand-alone film. The mentality that I went into the film with was "Yeah, it doesn't look like things match up with the previous 2 films or the Batman mythos but I have no doubt it will be a great film on its own". It was a shock for me that it wasn't even that. Not that it is a bad film (it's an alright film) and there are a lot of ideas in it that are great but the whole film falls apart when you put everything together. Basically, picture something great. Now picture something else that's great. You would be happy to see both of those things in the film but when you sit down and think about it, the second great thing completely contradicts/ignores the first great thing.

I really did not want to dislike TDKR. Even after all my friends have given up on it, I was still looking forward to it. Even after a lot of people I've talked with told me some of the problems they had without spoiling too much (I saw the film a week after it came out), I was still looking forward to it. Heck, even after I heard about the rumored ending, I was still looking forward to the film. There were rumors going around prior to the film coming out that John Blake would become Batman and Bruce would fake his death and retire in Italy with Selina. I remember brushing off all those people as idiots. Heck, even after my friend (who is also a big Batman fan) told me that the ending was bad, I still brushed off that rumor as the last thing to ever happen.

After I saw it, I even decided to give it a second chance to see if my opinion would change. Some of the things I thought were plot holes got cleared up the second time around but other than that, my opinion stayed the same for the most part. Overall, my point is that I by no means take pleasure in bashing the film.
Motivation in Terry McGuiness, or any other "successor" character's arc is not the same thing as a difference in personality. Terry went to juvenile hall. That is a bit different from having his life s a ruined criminal.

Like TAS' version of Dick Grayson and Tim Drake (who are both honestly much darker and angrier than their comic book counterparts), Terry is a product of poverty (Tim), crime (both) and ultimately the death of parent(s). The murder of whom sends each over the edge.

Batman sees something of himself in all of them and within a day of meeting Tim and Terry, lets them on the team as either Robin or Batman himself. Dick had to earn it more, but hey so did John Blake when you think about it.

YOu are obsessed with his occupation. John Blake is an idealist and an optimist--like every Robin and Terry McGuiness--who gets out of hot spots. I would say no more or less than Gordon, and he certainly makes more mistakes than Gordon did in BB. I would like to know where Gordon was ever wrong in that film other than his initial dismissal of Batman as "just some nut."

But it doesn't really matter. He gets into danger once and Batman saves him and he makes mistakes (not unlike Robin or Nolan's version of Batman who is not infallible like his comic book counterpart), but he has a stubborn streak that is like all the Robins.

Tell me: What is the difference between Dick Grayson, TAS' Tim Drake and John Blake? Answer that question without referring to age or profession....because they're all nearly identical.

And I strongly disagree that giving Batman a happy ending with Selina Kyle or him "outgrowing" Batman is a bad ending. Just because the comics would never go there, it should not be tabled for discussion. Bruce Wayne is a product of trauma. He saw his parents gunned down when he was a child and, depending on the source, mentally linked that with falling into a cave with bats from either before or right after his parents died. He never overcame that trauma and came up with a relatively adolescent response: I will fight crime so this will never happen to somebody else. Now, you could either end it with "and so it always was..." or do the boring thing and kill him off--as many fans wanted--or you could do the hard thing: What if he had to overcome that trauma to survive?

Just because Bruce Wayne is never allowed to let go of his anger or grief in the comics does not mean it cannot be explored in other media. It is a rigid and dogmatic view of the character and I genuinely believe that is the major reason you dislike the film, as it always comes back to this fact. It also cannot help if everyone around you apparently hated it and warned you of it. It seems to be a very different circle, because most people I saw it with loved it (though not all). If everyone says it's terrible for a week and you already decided that the idea of Bruce Wayne retiring at the end is stupid...well, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

P.S. I know the Robin costume has been muted. As you say, you just have to accept it. But that doesn't change the guy in all blacks and/or grays still puts his sidekick in red which makes one of them more a target than the other. Just saying.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 09:47 PM   #119
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 26,040
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Actually, in the modern sense of comics that is not the best explanation as to why such a loner and borderline psychotic control freak takes on a “Bat-family”.

First I have to explain the purpose of Robin in Modern Batman comics as I said I would. Robin often gets a bad rep from people. People often say that he is responsible for watering down Batman and such. I think that is true but that is also the whole point behind Robin. The jokiness and lightheartedness that Robin brings into the atmosphere around Batman is there to help Batman not cross that line and become the Punisher. This has been true about Robin since his very inception. In the Golden Age, the whole idea behind Robin’s creation was that Batman would no longer carry a gun to use in front of a kid and would be more responsible now that a kid is running on the rooftops with him. In the Modern Age, Robin puts emphasis on the fact that Batman is not the Punisher despite Batman being a dark and gritty character today. The reasons and motivations have changed throughout the years from dumbing down Batman comics to add depth to Batman and his no-kill policy but regardless of those two things, that purpose behind Robin has stayed the same. Robin is not fully the reason as to why Batman has that level of self-control to not cross that line but he is a big reason nonetheless. He doesn’t always have to be there in the comics but his existence in the Batman mythos is very important due to that.

That being said, Bruce did not originally recruit his Robins so that they could take his place nor does he have control over them once they grow up and leave the nest. Dick Grayson’s origin has varied throughout the years from writer to writer but in most versions, Bruce adopted him in the first place because he could relate to him due to losing his parents as well and provided him with the comfort he needed (unless you’re reading All-Star ). Then a situation arises in which either Dick discovers Bruce’s secret or Bruce is put into a situation in which he has no choice but to reveal who he is (Bruce reveals it to him after saving him if we go by Dark Victory). Bruce then trains Dick to become Robin so that Dick could fulfill his desire of catching Zucco and fighting crime. Then came Jason Todd. Bruce took him in because he wanted to reform him. He did not want to see a kid like him go on to become the criminal, which is the direction Jason was heading (and unfortunately, Bruce failed to do so). Next came Tim Drake, who approached Batman after he deduced his identity and asked him to be his new Robin. Bruce didn’t even want a new Robin at that point until Tim reminded him of the whole purpose of Robin in the first place (which is, like I said, to keep Batman away from becoming the Punisher). Next came Damian Wayne, who Bruce didn’t even know existed until very recently in that Batman timeline. Damian became Robin while Bruce was “dead” and he stayed as Robin when Bruce came back (as a side note, the Bruce as Batman/Damian as Robin dynamic doesn’t really work since I can’t picture Damian keeping Batman away from crossing that line). Prior to Damian’s death, Bruce had him be Robin to essentially keep him in line and continue reforming him in the same way Dick was reforming him.

As you can see, none of the Robins were mainly recruited because Bruce wanted to train them so that they could be Batman one day. In the case of Dick and Tim, it revolved around Bruce giving them the training they sought. In the case of Jason and Damian, it revolved around Bruce trying to reform them for the better. The Robins – and the rest of the Bat Family as well – is free to do as they please once they grow older and leave the nest. They can stay by Batman’s side, leave Gotham to go protect another city, create another identity altogether, or even quit crimefighting altogether. They can do this because they are their own men. He did his job as a “parent” to the best of his abilities by providing them with what they sought and guiding them along the way. It is entirely up to them what they do from that point on. However, Bruce never intended to push them on the path of them becoming Batman. In fact, it was always the exact opposite of that. Deep down inside, Bruce’s greatest wish has always been for his sons to not become like him. To not become a psychotic, obsessed, and paranoid demon in human form who sees the world through a very cynical lens like he does. This is excluding the fact that Batman is not very trusting of others and is too stubborn to pass on the Batman mantle in the first place. In the same way, both Dick and Tim do not have a desire to be Batman because they understand what it takes to be Batman. They understand that it takes more than just will. They know that they don’t have the insanity and obsession required to be Batman, which is what separates Batman from the rest of superheroes. Dick has even stated multiple times that he is too optimistic to be Batman. Jason does want to be Batman on the other hand, though he is the exception for obvious reasons.

Another reason as to why he has a Bat Family is because of his desire to have a family despite knowing he will never have one due to his Batman career. Thus he subconsciously lets (and even attracts in some cases) people into his life as Batman in order to fill that void.
I was not going to dissect this quote. But this part stuck out.

So for everything above the boldest part, let me suffice it to say that the main reason Robin is in the comics today, is honestly because of legacy. Not for the character, but to the comics. He is an iconic part of Bat-mythos and hugely popular. Besides ending many popular characters who are franchisable into their own titles, fans would be outraged of only a loner Batman. DC is obligated to keep Robin in and, like the ridiculous costume, they spend each generation trying to rationalize why this absurd premise of a grown man letting a child fight alongside of him would in some fashion be rational.

That is not to say I dislike Robin. I like all the incarnations (save for the Red Hood crap they did with Jason) and see his value, once I give them the mulligan. Like Robin's costume, I accept his existence and have found that since the 1980s, writers have done fascinating things with him in all his faces, most especially Nightwing.

As to the part I bolded, you are right he has a Bat-family to be his surrogate family. But an unspoken aspect among most families is that parents have children to pass the line along. That is not to say most parents literally want their kids to "follow in the family business," but they want to keep a certain legacy of themselves on after they're gone.

The Bat-family, whether they dress in bat-eared cowls or not, are to carry on his work when they are gone. Hence, shows like Batman Beyond being entirely wrapped around that premise, with Terry meeting up with both Tim and Barbara to explain why they "failed" to live up to their father figure and why Terry would succeed. I sincerely believe that the only reason Dick Grayson never showed up in BB is because TAS' Nightwing was too similar to Terry McGuiness.

Similarly it is explored in every variation of "Batman dying". There are "Battles for the Cowl." Whether it is Nightwing versus Jean-Paul or Nightwing and Red Robin versus Jason Todd in a book called BATTLE FOR THE COWL it is always the unspoken rule that one must assume the mantle. The fact that is called a MANTLE implies that it must be passed down. And every single attempt at "ending" Batman mythos, be it Paul Dini, Christopher Nolan or Frank Miller, taps into that. The torch is always passed in these stories. It is even done in the comics, but of course it is reversed because that is the nature of all comic stories. Once upon a time Peter Parker was married too. The fact that Marvel erased it does not detract from the fact that he is an average joe who goes through the motions of everyday life, such as marriage. The same is true of legacy and Bruce Wayne, in my opinion.



Quote:
I already addressed most of this stuff what you just read above. The next few points are just add-ons to what I already stated.

Interesting that you source the Knightfall series. I was going to source it as well in my last post but did not want to overwhelm you with too long of a post. Remember what Bruce says to Tim when Tim asks if he should contact Dick to take up the Batman mantle while Bruce is recovering? “No, he is his own man” or something among those lines. This goes back to what I said previously. Not only does he believe Dick is his own man but he also doesn’t believe that Dick lives in Batman’s shadow. Nightwing is his equal. You would have to be below someone in the first place in order for you to inherit their mantle. Nightwing would not inherit the Batman mantle for the same reasons why Superman would not inherit the Batman mantle: Because the Nightwing mantle is fitting to Dick in the exact same way the Batman mantle is fitting to Bruce. And of course that he would be offended that Bruce did not even bother to contact him and ask him if he could fill in for him for a bit. I also never said that someone like Dick or Tim can’t temporarily fill in for Batman while he is injured or missing; just that no one can really permanently replace Bruce Wayne as Batman.
And when Dick found out he was pissed. He chewed Bruce out about it and challenged Jean-Paul, for all intensive purposes, to a duel. And the next time Bruce disappeared, Dick did assume the mantle in the comics.

Quote:
For the record, I liked the stories with Dick as Batman and Damian as Robin. In fact, I believe the idea of having Damian as Robin only works if you have Dick as Batman, which is why I didn’t care for Damian anywhere as much when Bruce came back as I did when Bruce was “dead”. However, they never tried to shove down our throats the idea that Dick would forever stay as Batman. We knew from very early on that this was all going to be temporarily and that Bruce Wayne was stuck in the past. Also, let’s be realistic that Dick would have quit being Batman regardless of the New 52. The idea of two Batmans active at once couldn’t have lasted for so long. This analogy might sound silly but if the president goes into a coma and the vice-president takes over, what happens when the president awakens from the coma? Do they both remain as president or does the vice-president go back to being the vice-president? The latter is the most likely thing to happen even if the president has things to deal with in other countries (similar to Batman Inc).
It was only temporary because all comics are reductive and cyclical in nature. But honestly, it was the natural progression of the character. And I much preferred moving forward with that from a storytelling perspective as opposed to what the New 52 has done, which is hit the reset button. It is the same reason I preferred Peter married to his current status. But such is comics.

Quote:
These are clear examples of legacy characters. The reason why Barry and Hal are brought back in the end is because those characters just happen to be the characters that most people like the most out of all the characters to have held the mantle, but it is still established that they are legacy characters nonetheless. It doesn’t just happen that most people consider Bruce Wayne to be their “favorite Batman”. Batman was created out of the loss of Bruce Wayne’s innocence. He is a biproduct of Bruce Wayne’s scarred mind and exists in Bruce’s mind alone. Due to this, the comics have also established that no one would have the insanity and obsession required to be Batman in the first place, other than Bruce. The non-Barry Flashes and non-Hal GL’s at least held those respective titles for at least a decade or more. You’re comparing that to Jean-Paul Valley being in the batsuit for almost a full year and with Dick being in the batsuit for 2.5 years (real life time; not comic book time) out of the 74 years that Batman has existed. Even Superman had more replacements while he was dead, who is also not a legacy character. Both of those cases of Bruce not being in the suit are also cases in which we knew from the very beginning that this was all temporary, that Bruce wasn’t dead and that he was going to come back pretty soon. We didn’t fully know that when Barry died and when Hal became Parallax.
I honestly believe all DC characters, with a few notable exceptions, are legacy characters. More than Marvel. Even Superman is "The Man of Tomorrow." And the idea is that he inspires the entire planet one day to see the world as he does. There are comics of people from utopian futures visiting Clark Kent, in essence thanking him, for what he did. The reason we never see it happen in the status quo is the same reason Bruce Wayne is always Batman: These characters are too iconic to break that establishment. Moreso than Flash or Green Lantern who are more types than characters, at least in their inceptions.

As Batman has sons who will carry on his legacy, either in his costume or another, so does Superman have a world that will "meet him in the sun." It is the nature of these characters. We just never see them win because there are no more comics if Superman achieves world unity or Batman cleans up Gotham and/or dies. So, it goes on in a cycle.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 11:34 PM   #120
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,063
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

DACrowe, may I just say that I've really enjoyed your posts in this thread.

The thing you said about the unspoken relationship between parents and children and children carrying on the family tradition really hit the nail on the head.

What I'll say is that when we say Batman is a "legacy character", I think what we're really saying is Batman is an "implied legacy character". Legacy may not be the primary theme of the Batman mythos, but it's impossible to ignore that aspect of the story without ignoring the fact that Bruce Wayne is a flesh and blood human being who's not going to be around forever. I see Robin as nothing if not Batman's apprentice. Apprentices shadow their masters day in day out, learn the craft. And sometimes they end up teaching their teacher a thing or two along the way. That perfectly sums up the Wayne/Grayson relationship for me. And the existence of Nightwing as an independent character is the legacy of Batman in action. Batman is a superhero who creates other superheroes. That's legacy in and of itself. And that general legacy notion is something that can be modified and adapted for the screen, just like all the other stories, concepts and characters.

One final thing I'll say is, my feelings about the last shot of the film have nothing to do about how I feel about Blake as a character (though I have no major problems with him). The best comparison I can think of is the last shot of The Lion King. It's triumphant. Why though? We have 0 emotional investment in Simba's son, we have no idea what his personality will be like or what sort of king he'll make. Yet it's this soaring feeling when he's hoisted up atop Pride Rock. It's because he represents Simba's legacy and Simba finding his place in the circle of life.

And that's what hero's journeys are really about. Cycles. From Day 1 this has positively been a very Campbellian, "Hero's Journey" take on the Batman mythos. This is something that immediately made it unique from all the previous Batman films and even TAS, because those all start with a fully formed Batman who is primarily reacting to things. The ideas of fathers and legacy were laid on thick in BB, and it returned in a major way in TDKR.

Interestingly enough though, TDK is the most similar to the previous Batman movies because Batman pretty much is the fully formed Batman, and isn't really the true protagonist of the story (at best he's one of three protagonists). By definition Harvey Dent is the real protagonist though, as he's the one who has the biggest arc and changes the most as a result of the story. I think because of this, some people might've been expecting to see a continuation of "fully formed" Batman in the third film, but instead we got a focus on the end of his hero's journey cycle that started in the first film. TDK was uniquely crafted film in that it could have either been the basis for an endless string of sequels ala Bond OR part 2 of a three part story. I'm sure the infinite sequel route would've been an ideal scenario for the studio, but luckily Nolan is a slave to story and WB once again gave him full creative control in order to keep him on board.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158

Last edited by BatLobsterRises; 07-19-2013 at 02:21 PM.
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 09:55 AM   #121
shauner111
Side-Kick
 
shauner111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10,868
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

I love the "implied legacy" bit and Lion King reference. Flash and Green Lantern are legacy characters. But Batman has always been an implied legacy character. Nolan just had the opportunity to go through with something, without doing an adaptation of Batman Beyond. I always say that he followed through on the things the comics threatened to do, but never quite could do in its medium. It's pissed off a lot of people but it's made just as many (if not more) happy. The successor idea and the retiring happy.

I never thought of Lion King but that's awesome Lobster!

shauner111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 11:29 AM   #122
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,063
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Thanks.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2013, 08:02 PM   #123
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 26,040
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Indeed. Great point.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 11:30 PM   #124
IranianBatman
Newbie First Class
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaR85 View Post
Hi there, and welcome.

You bring up some good points. (Though, listening to Bruce and Miranda's conversation at the charity ball, I got the impression that Bruce had been in self-exile for three years.) Anyway, if you live in Gotham and put two and two together, it makes a lot of sense that Bruce Wayne could be Batman. I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that some people suspected he might be, but we simply don't get to see their point of view in the films. I believe that Blake and his friends at the boy's home made up stories that Bruce was Batman, which Blake went on to figure out was true.

You are right about Ra's and Bane knowing his identity. One of my personal wishes for the film was for Bane to reveal it to everyone and then see them rally behind Bruce. We heard Alfred talk a lot about the Wayne family legacy in the films, so I think it would have been fitting for Bruce to uphold that legacy by everyone knowing he was fighting for them.
I agree with others here that I find it not believable that Blake would be able to find out that Bruce Wayne was Batman from a look he saw 20 years ago. BUT it was established that Blake (even though young) was a very intuitive detective. He knew where to look for Gordon. He was able to find out Bane's plan.

So if Blake told Bruce Wayne that I knew you were Batman because 1) Batman has to be someone very rich and/or have access to high tech weaponry and Wayne Enterprises is a defense contractor (if I am not mistaken?) 2) Batman is in "exile" at the same time that Bruce Wayne is. Batman started when Bruce Wayne came back from a 7 year absence. Bruce Wayne has an unexplained injury that is highly unlikely for someone with his public image. Instead Blake the KID knew Bruce Wayne was Batman from a LOOK.

Yea, I think you are right that Blake and the other orphans made stories about "Bruce Wayne". I believe he told Bruce that we made legends about you and to OTHERS that's all it was...but for me I knew who you were all along.

I also wish that Bane DID reveal it to everyone. He actually has a motive to as well. Yes, that was what Alfred told Bruce in the first movie (that Bruce's parents brought hope back to Gotham but not completely or something).

IranianBatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2013, 12:03 AM   #125
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: Coleman Reese vs. John Blake

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
He has too many moments where he is just so right and so perfect in comparison to everyone else. Most of the film acts as if his only flaw is the fact that he is a good cop, which isn't even a flaw. The film puts him on a pedestal and treats him as the idealist cop who is a beacon of light in comparison to the rest (even Gordon in Year One and Batman Begins was more human and had more flaws). He gets out of a lot of situations with ease by himself (situations that even Gordon couldn't have handled by himself throughout the trilogy), is able to easily figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman looking into his soul (for lack of better term), and is worthy enough to inherit the batcave after spending less than 10 minutes of screen time with Bruce/Batman probably an hour overall in the context of the story. I probably wouldn't have a problem with all this if he wasn't just so boring and generic. My issue is that they took such a boring generic character and tried to convince us that he is more important than he should be. And yes, I know he is important to the story because of the ending but Nolan's first priority was to make an interesting compelling character so that the ending could naturally work (ignoring the other reasons as to why I think the ending would not work in the first place).


Based on this, I wouldn't doubt if John Blake was just an excuse for Nolan to use Joseph Gordon Levitt in one of his films again. Especially if he enjoyed working with him (and his cast mates) in Inception.

I hated the character, especially when I think of all they could have delved into (like focusing on Selina Kyle and Selina and Batman a bit more, or even poor Gordon who got the shaft) if he wasn't included. As soon as he said "I knew who you are because I could see it in your eyes and feel that anger in my bones" I felt like I was pulled out of the film. I couldn't believe this is where they decided to take the story.


As for Batman being a "legacy character", that's all fine when Bruce is dead and buried after years of torment on his body and mind. Even though I don't like those kind of stories where it brings those ideas to light, I think The Dark Knight Returns and Batman Beyond handled it infinitely better than TDKR. Atleast that Bruce still referred to himself as Batman and was more obsessively driven (and had a handful of Robin's and successors that weren't just there in name only).


Last edited by milost; 07-28-2013 at 12:08 AM.
milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.